Oh, and Al:
"Full of shit" was always just a phrase, an expression. The fact that you only caught on late in the game doesn't change that, it only shows that I made a mistake in assuming that you'd recognise it for what it was. Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.
I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.
Only a dickhead would think "I" "caught on this late in the game". I don't think you are a dickhead, nor do I for one moment believe you think I only just got this. More fool you if this IS the case. I knew what it was. I had a fair bit of your premise to dismantle first, and did this systematically:
- Your original claims were NOT JUST about me being intellectually dishonest but of being dishonest as well and of pretending, assuming things, and so on. You since dropped this claims or merged them into your greater claim
- You raised some point about something I said about Butterflies ("ganging up")and when I addressed it, you tried the crazy argument technique of questioning ME raising it (points for originality)
- You posted the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty as though I needed that explanation to know what the term meant. In fact I answered every aspect of the term, to show it wanting (something that unto itself, would run against the grain of "transparency" for intellectual dishonesty)
- You then kept repeating variations of the Mantra "You did not read Zegh, so you can't know for sure, he is full of shit, therefore you are intellectually dishonest". Then admonishing me when I had the temerity to question why this alone makes a case for intellectual dishonesty
- You tried a new tact and said that I was tiptoeing around DFG. This was an even weaker claim and you soon dropped it
- Changing tact you suggested I was not Intellectually dishonest afterall and it was a blindspot I had. That premise went nowhere and you gravitated back to the Intellectually dishonest premise again.
- I then showed a few instances of YOU using the term. Once with Calandale - to whom you could NOT have read everything he said for 6 months either (and so could not have been absolutely sure he was "full of shit" .... as if that was ever an argument worth making) and secondly I showed you casting such sentiments to Dr Bitch to something she said in one of her 18 posts, after having joined the day before. You did not (chose not to?) see the similarity of what you were doing and what you accused me of doing
- You then tried to reference Zegh as a reference point to support your claims (I just can't tell you how bizarre this is). Not only have I stopped reading him (because he is full of shit) but referencing him after suggesting that I was wrong about my suggestions you were "sticking up for him", you now try to use him as a reference point to your arguments of my feuding with him. No bias?
- Now I find you telling me to "get a life" and point out the examination of such a generalised insult is stupid and disingenuous AND more importantly, very similar in nature to saying someone is "full of shit". You agreed that get a life was a "mere expression". You have yet to see the hypocrisy.
So what points ought I have made in what particular order? This is a how long is a piece of string question. If I did not make a particular point at a particular time does that mean that it only occurred to me? To me, I had bigger things to concentrate on such as:
- Attacking the premise that I was "pretending" and being "dishonest", both of which you conceded were poorly chosen and that you wished to express ONLY intellectual dishonesty.
- Showing the irrelevance of the "ganging up" inference premise of yours
- Show a defence against every aspect of the claim that I was intellectually dishonest by identifying every aspect of the definition and contrasting that against my own actions to find it wanting
- Outlining the weakness of your tactic of making a weak subjective premise without any support and to show a dictionary definition of a word then repeat a point over and over.
- Arguing your introduced point about me apparently tiptoeing
- Showing your own use of the phrase "full of shit"
I am not about repeating the same point over and over. Nor do I expect have an expiration date on a disagreement. It finishes when it finishes. I think that each aspect of what you said WILL be addressed and in time.
So yes the "only just occurred to you" was a pretty silly thing to say, wasn't it?
I might not have said anything if you hadn't continued to follow him across the board with your moronic ninja cats and whatnot, if you'd simply stopped reading and stopped caring. Plenty of people here who stop reading other people's posts. They move on, though; you don't.
Yes, I don't, or at least, I haven't....and?
Now you HAVE said something AND? How has that all turned out for you? Better? Has it stopped my efforts against Zegh? Has it resolved anything? Is it likely to make a long term difference?
You are getting closer to the point where you confess your reason for bringing it up in the first place was to get me to stop and to do so was that it annoyed you and whilst you did not want to be involved in the argument or "choose sides" you thought by making a few weak but pointed accusations you could either distract me or shame me into shutting up and stopping feuding with Zegh, without looking partisan.
Again, I don't care. I may have paid attention to this if a month or so ago you had said this was the case, and may have stopped. But you didn't. You doubled down and so now will I. Don't you think that is fair?
Your intellectual dishonesty stems from the fact that you, as they put it, "took the easy way out", proud of not reading Zegh but nevertheless showing with your every word and your every action what you thought about him and how nothing would change that.
I have shown that by ANY rational, intelligent and logical viewing my views on Zegh are not uniformed EVEN if I have not read him for six months. Reading someone is easy. Reading someone and getting a bead on them is easy (generally, unless said person is known to lie - such saying that they will have one month of silent treatment [directed at me and DFG] and then not follow through) BUT what is much harder is to keep a decent bead on them based off 7 years worth of experience of reading and interacting with them and watching what and who they react to and second hand reports on what they said or did not say and the interactions people have with them. This is MUCH harder and therefore by any decent reasoning, NOT the easy way out.
Its pretty easy to understand. Getting it wrong after reading them and paying attention to them is possible but less likely that relying on all of the above that I do. So how well do I do? Well, see all those examples on the board where people have said "Zegh did not say what you accused him of" and "You were so off base, Zegh was so not being snarky, condescending, and full of shit. He was actually just popping into your callouts to say complimentary things to and about you. I think he has really changed since you stopped talking to him. He never lies, is respectful and reasonable. I think you would find him very tolerable nowdays"
No? You don't see that? Do you see ANYONE point out anything that I said about him which is factually incorrect? Anything Odeon?
Okay, new question. IF I manage to maintain this without reading him....is this easier .....or.....harder? If you say easier you either deliberately disingenuous or your IQ is slipping.
My every word and action? Yup, I think he is an asshat and is full of shit. And??
" how nothing would change that"
This is dishonest. Why are being dishonest? No, Odeon, you are and you know you are. I have been very clear that it is up to Zegh to sort things out. I have been extremely clear that I have sorted out differences between others that i had issues with. Its a very long list and you have been here on I2 with me years and know this is the case. People that I have disliked just as much as Zegh. He is NOT special.
Why then are you being dishonest and for who's benefit?
What is amazing to me is how closely this post's general points resemble this post way early on in the piece. I am consistent.
I do read and re-registered and analyse what you have said and I am no closer to see a reasonable point..
All I see is variations of the same themes "You did not read him", "You posted Ninja Cats". Like either of these were anything more than conversation starters and as if these points actually were irrefutable proof of your false claims of me. They weren't in either case
Yet my engagement in this is not what you want because whatever assumptions you have made, you are holding onto for dear life. When I give example after example to illustrate my point, I am apparently taking things too literally or bringing Zegh into the conversation.
I don't think it is me though. I suspect the reason why nothing said has any substance is not that I am missing it, but that you have no real substance. In fact in my last reply I showed the lack of such substance.due to no consideration of context.
You are not a stupid man, Odeon. I see no reason for you purposely wishing to make and defend baseless claims about me to which and surface analysis would render toothless. I think you are smarter than that. So I want to know what is going on?
